Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05132003 - C61-C62 C.61 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 13, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, Glover & DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None District III is Vacant SUBJECT: Award & Authorize the General Service Director & designee to execute a contract in the amount of$2,176,000 With Taber construction Company, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Remodel & Office Landscape Partitions Modification Project at 1305 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, for the Employment & Human Services Dept. RELIS'TED to 5/20/03 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: May 13,2003 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Su sors ani oun1 trator By: c Depu Jerk GENERAL SERVICESDEPARTMENT Capital Projects Management Division 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 100 Martinez,California 94553-4711 (925)313-7200 FAX (925)3137299 File: 135-39038.4.4 Authorization No. WH368B TO: Board of Supervisors ' FROM: Barton J. Gilbert,Director of General Services DATE: May 13, 2003 SUBJECT: CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION Bids for REMODEL AND OFFICE LANDSCAPE PARTITION MODIFICATIONS AT 1305 MACDONALD AVENUE, RICHMOND FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT were received and opened at the County Capital Projects Management Division Office on February 13,2003. Stevelle Construction of Emeryville, who submitted the lowest monetary bid of $1,973,000, withdrew their bid. For this reason it is recommended that Stevelle Construction's bid be rejected as non-responsive and that their bid bond be exonerated. Tinney Construction Corporation of Redwood City, who submitted the second lowest monetary bid of $2,122,757, withdrew their bid. For this reason, it is recommended that Tinney Construction's bid be rejected as non-responsive and that their bid bond be exonerated. It is recommended that the Beard of Supervisors award the construction contract to the third lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Taber Construction Company ("Taber') located of 4776 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez, who has documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach Program, and award the construction contract to Taber in the amount of$2,176,000. The architect's construction cost estimate for the project was estimate was$2,500,000, 22:12 999\2359903\9100367M.DOC Board of Supervisors File: 135-9903/B.4.4 Contract Award Recommendation May, 13, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Other bids received: Base Bid 1. Stevelle Construction Company $1,979,000 Emeryville 2. Tinney Construction Corporation $2,122,757 Redwood City 3. Alten Construction $2,180,000 San Rafael 4. Charles O Jones Co., Inc. $2,200.000 San Rafael 5. Albay Construction Company $2,269,000 Martinez 6. CJE Construction, Inc. $2,376,000 Concord 7. N.V. Heathorn, Inc. $2,417,309 San Leandro 8. Vila Construction Company $2,432,000 Richmond 9. Svala Construction,Inc. $2,534,000 Emeryville 10. Roek Construction $2,537,000 Stockton The Contract Compliance Officer has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bidder's documentation of good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach Program to the Board for consideration.. County Counsel has reviewed the Project Labor Agreement between Taber and the Contra Costa County Building and Construction Trades Council for compliance with the requirements of the County's Project Labor Agreement policy. 3A:amc cc w/attach.: County Administrator's Office Clerk of the Board(w/bids) County Counsel Contract Compliance Officer H:\1999\1339903\9100367M.DOC File: 135-99038.4.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order of May 13,2003,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Award of Contract for the Remodel and Office Landscape Modifications at 1305 Macdonald Avenue, Richmond for the Employment and Human Services Department Budget Line Item No. 4423-4368 Authorization No. 0928-WH368B Bidder Total Amount Bond Amounts Taber Construction $2,176,000 Payment: $2,176,000 4776 Pacheco Blvd. Performance:$2,176,000 Martinez Stevelle Construction Co. $1,979,000 Emeryville Tinney Construction $2,122,757 Redwood City Alten Construction $2,180,000 San Rafael Charles O.Jones Co.,Inc. $2,200,000 San Rafael Albay Construction Company $2,269,000 Martinez CJE Construction,Inc. $2,376,000 Concord N.V.Heathorn,Inc. $2,417,309 San Leandro Vila Construction Company $2,432,000 Richmond Svala Construction,Inc. $2,534,000 Emeryville Roek Construction $2,537,000 Stockton The above referenced project and the plans and specifications therefore having been previously approved, Addendum No. i having been issued and approved, and bids having been duly invited and received by the Director of General Services on February 13,2003;and HA1999\1359903\9100368B.D0C lof3 Award of Contract for the 135-9903B.4.4 REMODEL AND OFFICE LANDSCAPE May 13, 2003 MODIFICATIONS AT 1305 MACDONALD AVENUE, RICHMOND FOR:THE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT The lowest monetary bidder, Stevelle Construction Company, withdrew their bid, and the Director of General Services recommending rejection of said bid; and The second lowest monetary bidder, Tinney Construction, Inc., withdrew their bid, and the Director of General Services recommending rejection of said bid; and The bidder listed first above, Taber Construction Company C Taber"), having submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid,which is$197,000 more than the lowest monetary bid; and The Contract Compliance Officer having reported that Taber has documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach Program; and The Director of General Services recommending that the bid submitted by Taber is the lowest responsive and responsible bid,and this Board concurring and so finding. NOW,THEREFORE, the Board finds,determines and orders as follows: The Board DETERMINES that the bids submitted by the lowest monetary bidder Stevelle Construction Company, and the second lowest monetary bidder, Tinney Construction, Inc., were withdrawn, REJECTS said bids, on those grounds, and ORDERS that the corresponding bid bonds be exonerated; and The Board DETERMINES that, Taber as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, has demonstrated an adequate good faith effort, pursuant to the specifications for this project, to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach Program, and the Board WAIVES any irregularities in such compliance; and The Board FURTHER DETERMINES that, Taber as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, will enter into a Project Labor Agreement with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council to comply with the requirements of the County's Project Labor Agreement policy as a condition precedent of contract award; and The Board,therefore, ORDERS that the contract for the furnishing of labor and materials for said work is awarded to Taber at the listed amount and at the prices submitted in said bid, and that said contractor shall present sufficient payment and performance surety bonds as indicated above, and that the Director of General Services,or designee, shall prepare the contract therefor; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted above and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Director of General Services, or designee, has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Director of General Services, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Director of General Services, or designee, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that the Director of General Services, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retention into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code and pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board DELEGATES its functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110 to the Director of General Services, or designee; and Award of Contract for the 137-9903/B.4.4 REMODEL AND OFFICE LANDSCAPE May 13, 2003 MODIFICATIONS AT 1305 MACDONALD AVENUE, RICIIMOND FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Board DECLARES that, should the award of the contract to Taber be invalidated for any reason,the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder,but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from reawarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance in accordance with Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107. Orig. Dept. General Services Dept. - Capital Projects Management Division cc: General Services Department Capital Projects Management Division Accounting CPM File: 135-9903/A.5 County Administrator's Office County Counsel Contract Compliance Officer(via CPM) Auditor-Controller Taber Construction(via CPM) Surety(via CPM) Consultant(via CPM) Jkamc 05/12/03 20:15 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR Q002/005 A.T-= #E, lxoNiDou &- ROBIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTOVMY'S AT LAW JANE'f'I'�C LEONIDOU PAUL A VRML)E A ROBERT ROSIN {OF Co May 12,2003 Ii -- - CIRCLE- JAMESR aUSSSUE THOMAS IE 205LON SSUITEISUITE205 (SPECm Coc1ML) SAM FRANCISCO,CA 94134 $Lt}AN C BAILEY {415)745-2860 CATHERINE 0 50SKOFf CATHERINE (a45)715-2870 IVO G DANIELE DSDRO Y M K SAKAI PATRICIA WALSH LISA 0 WRIGHT Via Facsimile Mr.Michael J.Lango Deputy General Services Director 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 100 Martinez,California Re; Remodel and Office Landscape Partition Modifications at 1305 MacDonald Avenue,Richmond for the Employment and Human Services Department Protest of Atten Construction,Inc. Dear Mr. Lango: It is our understanding that the County is interested in authority with regard to whether a bid can be rejected based on facts not adduced from the face of the bid. The law is that extriis facts can and must be considered. E 'nsic Evidence Qn Be side When-DetermWin Whether A Bid Is Res>aonsive Responsiveness means whether a bid conforms to the material terms of the owner's solicitation. &e Menefee v. County of resno, 163 C.A.3d 1.175 (1985). Thus, the issue is not whether the nonconformity is"apparent"from the face of the bid,but whether the bidder is promising to do what the solicitation requires. Tn Koica RjWness Machine IS v_ 12e , t f e IIiv.of Ca lif,206 C.A.3d 449,454 (1988),the Court of Appeal found that a bid was nonresponsive because the machines that the bidder proposed to supply would not meet performance criteria contained in the solicitation. The determination of whether the machines would meet the performance criteria required evaluation of evidence outside of the scope of the bid itself. The Court relied on evidence in declarations in'determining whether the bid was nonresponsive. In National Idgntificat gn Systems.Inc, v.Board of Control, 11 C.A.4th 1446, 1464(1992),the Court of Appeal upheld the right of an agency to require 05/12/03 20.15 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR W003/003 v Mr. Mich�sel J.:f.,ax�go May 12,2003 Page 2 of 4 demonstrations of proposed system in order to determine responsiveness. Obviously, such demonstrations involve facts outside of the scope of the initial bid documents. In Beve*1y I t1.ss v 1Wen"Q u t„272 C.A.2d 876(1969),the contract documents required that the contractor possess a particular contractor's license. 1Zelying on a letter received from the Contractors State License Board,the City rejected a bid as nonresponsive because the bidder did not have the required license. The Court upheld the City's reliance on the extrinsic evidence. In DR="f lee is Inc. v.C. of l os Angeles. 9 Cal.0161 (1991),the Supreme Court upheld a system of bidding that allowed submission of documentation of"good faith efforts"alter bids had been submitted. Thus,responsiveness(whether goad faith efforts had been undertaken)was determined from information provided outside of the bid itself: In Tay ter B ee v. S Diego Bd 2f Education. 195 C.A3d 1331, 1341-42 (1987), the Court of Appeal upheld the rescission of an award to the low bidder after the low bidder failed to provide insurance that conformed with contract requirements. The public agency,and the Court, considered extensive extrinsic evidence on the issue of whether the bid was responsive(i.e.,the insurance requirements had been satisifed). In reaching its decision,the Court noted: A determination that a bidder is responsible is a complex matter dependent,often, on information received outside the bidding process and requiring,in many cases, an application of subtle judgment.Not only is the process complex,but the declaration of nonresponsibility may have an adverse impact on the professional or business reputation of the bidder. Such circumstances reasonably require the procedures defined in City ofInglewood. Inglewood. A determination of nonresponsiveness on the other hand is less complex.The district or agency has,before soliciting bids,exercised its business and governmental,judgment in defining a set of requirements for the work to be done. Responsiveness can be determined from the face of the bid and the bidder at least has some clue at the time of submission that problems might exist. &g!gart, the determination of nonresponsiveness will not depend on outside investigation or information and a determination o,f nonresponsiveness wifl resat n„Pict the reputation of the bidder. Given the pred'eterr inadon ra,f`bid spec#Zceo►es,and given the more apparent and tgy rnal nature tsfthe faces„furs Rona rtin norm ive less due process is reasonably required with that determination Hiatt when nonresponsibility is declared. The Court of Appeal recognized that responsiveness cannot always be determined from the face of the bid by using the words, "in most cases"outside investigation is not ............I.............. 05/12/03 20:15 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR Q004/005 Mr.Michael I Lango May 12,2003 Page 3 of4 required,and by the Court's own reliance on extrinsic evidence supporting the decision to take the contract away. DW-I -s Did Must Also Be Re d-Because Taber Is Not A Res P9_uI&Ie ALdd_t-t In deciding whether to reject a bid,the County both gq&and mast consider extrinsic evidence. Jiy_1%Dus, Service v. SAU Diego B&of Bdu_c&t9 195 C.A.3d 1331, 1341-42 (1987); Cit OvicCenterApthgliV ,y QLLI&IgMmo--d-Los Angles Cgunty- v. Sum m- 'or Court, 7 Cal. 3d 861 (1972). Section 20128 of the Public Contract Code required that the County award the contract to a"responsible"bidder. A responsible bidder is one who has demonstrated not only that it is'trustworthy",but also that it has the"fitness,capacity and experience"to 4e satisfactorily perfor&'a contract. Pub- Contract Code§ 1101;&_ydston v,Napa.San, Djs—t-,222 C.A.3d 1362 (1990). Taber is not responsible because: • TOer 4qm got have the skilL LxIWati `encs wdaualMc qnsIgIgang-ta—cture md instLd J a to WA hydraulic elev#—Or,which the specifications required be utilized on this project. For example,Taber does not have 20 years experience in manufacturing components for elevators. The ShsMt_raMx that Taber Ltqo�Naticluesdoes of gI&4Vhcture-fAg maAr&Umd-,h%§nuUc elevator, and therefore camot comply with the specifications. !beth;bLeu&rthr Ight wale lhe Coun . Taber has falsely argued that Taber and its listed subcontractor will be able to comply with the specifications, when they cannot. While assuring the County that it will comply with the elevator specifications, Taber has not taken any steps to ascertain whether its listed subcontractor can provide a roped hydraulic system required by the specifications. Taber's listed subcontractor has told Alten that Tabor has not been in touch with the subcontractor for some tirne. Equally important National"s bid clearly stated that National was not proposing to supply a roped hydrualic;elevator. I-:,very other bidder read National's proposal and did not list National,because the elevator National proposed to Supply would not meet specifications. Taber either carelessly ignored what National bad written in its proposal, or decided deliberately to flout the specifications. 00041838.DOC ......................................................................................................-...-.... .............................................. 05/12/03 20:15 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR Q005/005 ........... Mr.Michael I fango May 12,2003 page 4 of 4 The county is entitled to rely on extrinsic evidence to determine that Taber canmt comply with the roped hydraulic elevator requirement. Determining that the bid is nonresponsive in this instance is no different than determining that systems do not meet that a performance standards,that the contractors insurance does not meet specification, contractor had failed to meet"good faith efforts"requirements,and that a contractor was ,lot properly licensed,all of which have been upheld as grounds for denying award of a contract based on extrinsic evidence, is not responsible. In addition,the County must deity the award because Taber Taber jar and its listed subcontractOT k the ability to satisfy the requirements for installation of a roped hydraulir,elevator. Taber)s own lack of candor. in this regard is itself a basis for rejecting an award to Taber. Very truly yours, A.Robert Rosin Enclosures cc: Taber Construction Silvana Marchesi,Esq,. (County Counsel) Mr. Scott Tandy(County Administrators Office) MUI838DOC ..........I.-........ ... ...... ................. .................................................................................... . .::.. ......... 05/12/03 17:51 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR X002/00$ ,kHnRNE, JLEUNIDou c RC SiN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW JANEITE G LE,ONIDOU PAUL A AHERNE A R=RT ROSIN (or c uraf':) May 12, 2003 JAMES R$ttbsELl.E SUITE 205 5 THOMAS MELLON'CROLE (SKCIAL COUNSEL) SAN FRANCISCO, CiSCA iit134 SLC)AN C BAILEY (415)715-2aSD CATHERM G SOSKOFP FACSIMILE(415)715-2870 IVO G DANIELE DEIDPEE Y M K SAM PATRICIA WALSH USA 0 WRIGHT Via Facsimile Mr.Michael J.Lango Deputy General Services Director 1220 Morello Avenue,Suite 100 Martinez, California Re: Remodel and Office Landscape Partition Modifications at 1305 ;MacDonald Avenue,Richmond for the Employment and Human Services Department Protest ofAlten Construction,Inc. Dear Mr.Longo: This office represents Alten Construction,Inc.,the contractor that submitted the lowest responsive bid for the above project. Alten has submitted a formal protest. This letter provides additional legal authority and evidence in support of the protest. An award to a contractor other than Alten would be contrary to lave and void. As discussed below,the County is barred by the California Constitution from making any disbursements under a contract issued in violation of competitive bidding laws. T-per's Bid Is agaLesatl gsye and Cannot Be Accepted A bid that does not confo m to requirements of the bid solicitation can be accepted only where no bidder has submitted a bid that met all of the bid requirements. Natio►4 I outlfieation v Board ofControl, 11 C.A..4th 1446, 1464(1992). Tabor's bid is non-responsive because the company that Taber has listed cannot provide the product required by the specifications and has not manufactured the components required for the elevator for a period of not less than 20 years. Buse Alt='s bid did comply With the requirements, and Taber's did not,Taber's bid must be rejected. The proposal from Taber Construction was nonresponsive because it listed an elevator subcontractor that does not manufacture and install a roped fiydrau&elevator, .... ...... .......... ...._... _......... ........ __......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... ....... 05/12/03 17:51 FAX 415 715 2870 ALAR IM 003/008 Mr.Michael 3. Longo May 12,2003 Page 2 of 4 which the specifications required be utilized on this project. Section 14240 of the specifications requires the installation of"one(1)roped hydraulic elevator complete as shown and specified." The specifications require that manufacturer of the elevator components have been in business "for the last twenty years." Section 14240,' 1.2(A). Taber Construction's listed subcontractor,National Elevator Company,Inc.,does not manufacture or install roped hydraulic elevators. Please see National Elevator Company's letter,which states: "As noted on our Bid,the proposal was not for a Md hydraulic elevatot. Our proposal was for a holed hydraulic elevator system with a piston in the ground. Nutirin Elevator does that install red hl tar&elevator systems." National has confirmed that it has not had any recent contacts with Taber Construction. Accordingly,any assurances by Taber Construction that National will install a roped hydraulic elevator would be mistaken and a material misrepresentation of fact. Taber's laid is nonresponsive. The County Does Not Have discretion To Waive The Irrigglarities In Taber's Bid The irregularities in Taber's bid cannot be waived because they confer a competitive advantage. Menefee v.County of Fresno. 163 C.A.3d 1175 (1985). It is irrelevant whether Taber intended or actually took advantage of the situation that it created by tailing to submit required subcontractor and supplier information at the time of bid. So long as the possibility exists that Taber might have benefited,the irregularities in its bid cannot be waived. V,�I_e;y Crest Land=co Inc v paVls,41 C.A.4th 1432(1996); a Business Madim US c,v Ree of LILe Uiliv._o alif.,246 C.A3d at 454. Taber received a competitive advantage'in three ways. Firs4 Taber will have to substitute another elevator company to replace National,which will allow it to shop the elevator subcontract after bid opening. No other bidder enjoyed this opportunity to require elevator companies to bid against each other after bid opening. The Court of Appeal in Valley Crest Landscape, Inc.Y.Davis,41 C.A.4th 1432 (1996)ruled that a contractor would gain a competitive advantage if it could correct an error in subcontractor listing information after bid. Thus,under very similar circumstances,the courts have ruled that failure to provide complete and accurate information regarding subcontractors confers a competitive advantage. 00041825.DOC . ......... 05/12/03 17:52 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR 11004/008 Mr.Michael J.Longo May 12,2003 Page 3 of 4 Second,Taber,gained valuable time to finalize its bid. This additional time, gained from not gathering, analyzing and providing subcontractor information, at the time of bid,in itself conferred a competitive advantage. Third,Taber gained the ability to argue that it had made a bid error that would allow it to withdraw its bid for mistake. Because of the way that Taber prepared its bid,it could argue that it had intended to list a subcontractor who would provide a roped elevator, but mistakenly overlooked the qualifications to National's bid. This kind of clerical error would allow Taber to withdraw its bid. Pub. Contract Code § 5103. Taber therefore enjoyed an advantage over other bidders because it would be able to wait and see the bid results,then argue that it should be released from its bid for mistake. Yallgy Crest L,andscaRe Inc v Davis,41 C.A.4th 1432 (1995). A bid that does not comply with subcontractor listing requirements is nonresponsive. Beverly Hills v. Superior Court.272 C.A.2d.876(1959)(failure to provide licensing information rendered bid nonresponsive,notwithstanding that the information was not required by statute). A public agency is bound to follow the requirements of its solicitation and may be ordered by writ of mandate to do so. Pozar v,Dept, of 3:m-wuortation, 144 C.A.3d 269, 272 (19$3);Valley Crest Landscape,Inc. v.Davis,41 C.A.4th 1432(1996). Here,the solicitation required that bids include specific subcontractor and supplier information. To allow the County to disregard its own solicitation requirements would open the door for fraud, favoritism and undue influence in public contracting.the evils that competitive bidding is intended to prevent. I4nica Business Machines USA. Inc.v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif:.206 C.A.3d 449, 456-57(1988). Waiving requirements in favor of one bidder, and not another, would introduce an unproper and unfair element of subjectivity into the bid process. City of 1lewood-LA County Civic Center v.Superior Court, 7 C.3d 861,867(1972). To fail to enforce the contract documents uniformly would be arbitrary and capricious,and thus grounds for setting aside any award to a bidder who did not strictly comply with the requirement that subcontractor information be submitted at the time of bid. Id. Consequences of an Megal Award to Taber A contract awarded to a contractor other than Alten would be illegal and void. Valley Crea Landscape. Inc.v.Davis,41 C.A.4th 1432 (1996);Monterey Mechanical v. Sa.cmmepto'Regional County Sanitation istzir—I 44 CA-4th 1391 (1996). Payment of any funds to another bidder also would violate the California Constitution. Section 10 of Article XI of the Constitution provides that"a local 00041825.DOC _ _ _ _. _ _. 05/12/03 17:52 FAX 415 715 2870 ALAR 0005/008 / � I Mr.Michael L Longo May 12, 2003 Page 4 of4 government body may not... pay a claim under an agreement made without authority of law." A concerned taxpayer,as well as Alter,may bring an action to enjoin payments on a contract awarded to another bidder and to require the return to the County of any such payments. ( ..Lolli, 10 C.A.3d 10)59(1970);M'll . ' c �0 20 C.2d 93 (1942). The public policy underlying competitive bidding is so strong that a court is required,on its own initiative,to order the return of payments even if the parties t©a lawsuit do not request such an order. GSE Y—Hitchcock,271 C.A.2d 334(1969)_ Section 17.203 of the Business&Professions Code provides additional authority for orders compelling the disgorgement of payments received under a void contract. conclusion The team that Alten has marshaled for the project,including Alten's subcontractors, is highly capable and has significant experience on similar projects. Alten has a strong.record of successful completion of difficult projects and looks forward to working with the County. It is our expectation that the County will examine the facts and issues carefully and make an award to Alten,the contractor that submitted the lowest responsive bid. If the County were to consider an award to another bidder,however,we would ask that the County hold a fall and open hearing on all relevant issues. Please let us know if'we can provide you with any additional information. Very truly yours, 4' . Z. A. Robert Rusin Enclosures cc: Taber Construction Silvano Marchesi,Esq. (County Counsel) Mr. Scott Tandy(County Administrator's Office) 00041825.r10C ...... .. .... 05/12/03 17:52 FAX 415 715 2870 AUR Q006/008 fl5ft39t2e •�r 9254842544 NATIONAL ELEVATGR PACE 02 LL National Elevator Company, Inc. 21.55 RNEW DRIVE ►PLEASANMN,CA 94588 (926)49"090 (FM 40412544 May 9,2003 Alton Caustructon Attu: Bob Alton 44 Woodland Avenue San Rafal.CA 94901-5344 Re: Employment and'Hmnan SOMOM.Richmond',, Ueat 191st.Alton: This letter is to clarify that we submitted an Elevaor Bid on February 13,2003 for the elevator installation for the,above referencedproject. As noted on our Bid,the pMosal was not; IMA ydraulic of Our proposal was for a holed hydraulic elevator System with a piston in ihe:ground. National Elevatior does not instal roped'hydmulic elevator systems. If you require A t cr infb majiM please do not ha tate to call. Sincerely, llAal)VC0 Losrri.A. Guarino Office Manager _ ... .... ............. _....... ._...... ......... ........ .......... .... .._...... ...._..... .......... ..... ........ Rif_ :Si y E t MAP q -. VXI�t � r MAP 9 M +N y�" a �! a. { t ! $ • f a t R t w a $ Y s - - •#,# a •,t•f a Ft :aa - t ♦a_: a is- 4 fl as a« t � 9 — ;s1a- a ani• .sf# i.t:" \ M:rr FR «f $ g «« « aa{ fl { R 3!r f Y It$ ``$ �$$ a • . 4r#'f5 a tf-. 46#} - ♦!r F a +r ayE!:E Y :}i$ i t \F g P•- ! �t$ i weF.i .ti. wS \J' f �+S i IF ! 4 :8 f •F F.- $g y { 7 _ F $ a 4 t st #:S2$ * ..4 # tl!aa R - • € a{r: fit '" !• 1 ..94 Via! 41 # • \i a � i ... .. ..... .... ..... ..... 05/12/03 17:52 FAX 415 715 2870 ALAR Q008/008 Office LandscapePartition Modifications Remodel and office 13050 Macdonald Avenue,Richmond,Califortria.for Erngloyrnent 91nd Human Resotirces f g Sensing Device: Stroke deftctars or products of c rmbust an sensors in elevator lobbies with gaits termi?3ateoi at junctrin box in rhe room for cmergcucy fire savice operation. ; 10. Rwricades: Protection of open hoisrway during construction as required by governing suthoft. 11. Painting: Field painting ofprime finish stems Ming fuel finishes. 12. Ftd&Floor: Installation of finish floating in elevator car. D. Definitions: 1: Maze bobby: First Floor(Confirm with Fire Mar") 2. Fire Rmll'Floor. First Floor (Confrtn with Firs Marshal) 3. Alwmate Flee Recall Flour. Second Floor'(ConfsmvithFire Mambal) 1.2 QUALITY ASSURA3gCF, A.` 'J w}9- ,•�The design.engiw�g and manufacture re of mmol elevator componenu snob as pump,motor,valve,couttroller,door operator,etc.,shall be of the same manufaatim and ane that has been in she business IT lava f .� r a,standard of, , t m=ufutwed Jv1anu&ctLSC'shall be t'esponsible il: wMur <r 1. The pmpa zd=of all engineering and sb4 dr wing mbmittals. + S-. 2. The pGrEorrtMce of Bramb Office Or Agent bwWling 0quip ertt. 3. Jhe,matexial dchv=y and construction schedules. 4. Tac equipment installation,is per manufacturers requirements and:contract documents. 5. Providing contact,docum=t stents for maintenance data and materials. 6. Equipment and pmfes-n=ce guarantees. B. Installer and Maintenance Qwlif cat o s:Installer must be a licensed Elevator Contractor in the State of Califwnia and must 1. Be able to show evidence of sucoessW experience m camplem installation and mice of proposed manufac#u ves elevator equiipment. 2. Dteatly employ sufficient r=est persarmel�witb 50 miles of project to hendle cons'tnxtion andmairtteawce duties. 3. Maize local sock ofparts adequate for repbwement on permanent or emergclacy basis. 4. Be able to respond to trouble calls within none boar. - 5. Be able to Offer the Owner agreement for ccmtinuipg:nwntenance after expiration of ' .. tzu�tmaztce period under this Cmatract: 6. Elevator Cas and E'utraaces: Manufaaftned by Elevator Man tures;one of the following or equal: a. Elvm for Inimitor&Designs b. Sterling Cvrp=t ou. HYDRALUC ELEVATOR 1424D-•2 GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Projects Management Division 1220 Morello Avenue,Suite 100 Martinez,California 94553-4711 (925)313-7200 FAX (925)313-7299 File: 305-0102/B.4.4 Authorization No. WH457B TO: :Beard of Supervisors FROM: z artan J. Gilbert, Director of General Services DATE-.' . May 13, 2003 SUBJECT: CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION :Bids for FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR REMODEL AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 1650 CAVALLO ROAD, ANTIOCH FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT were received and opened at the County Capital Projects Management Division Office on February 6,2003. N. V. Heathorn, Inc. of San Leandro, who submitted the lowest monetary bid of$2,269,100, did not obtain the necessary signatures on a Project Labor Agreement (PLA), as required by the contract documents. In addition, Heathom would not extend its bid beyond the original 60-day bid expiration date (i.e., April 7, 2003). Therefore, Heathorn's bid has expired and no longer may be accepted by the Board. Stevelle Construction Company of Emeryville,who submitted the second lowest monetary bid of $2,399,000, did not submit good faith effort documentation under the County's Outreach Program within the period required in the contract documents, and Stevelle was notified of that determination by the Contract Compliance Officer. Stevelle appealed the determination to the County Administrator but later acknowledged the failure to timely submit good faith effort documentation. The County Administrator has denied.Stevelle's appeal on that basis, and notice has been sent to Stevelle. In addition, Stevelle failed to extend its bid beyond the original 60-day bid expiration date (i.e., April 7, 2003), which means that Stevelle's bid has expired. For these reasons, it is recommended that Stevelle's bid be rejected and that the bid bond be exonerated. It initially appeared that Tinney Construction Company of Redwood City, who submitted the third lowest monetary bid of$2,413,000, did not submit good faith effort documentation under the County's Outreach Program within the period required in the contract documents,and Tinney was notified of that determination by the Contract Compliance Officer. Tinney appealed the determination to the County Administrator. After reviewing the matter, including evidence of delivery provided by Tinney, the County Administrator has determined that Tinney did timely submit the required good faith effort documentation and has granted Tinney's appeal. By separate memo,the Contract Compliance Officer has forwarded Tinney's good faith effort R\200113050102101BO02070m.doc JA:tb Rev.5/7/03 Board of Supervisors File: 305-0102/B.4.4 CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION May 13, 2003 Page 2 of 2 documentation for the Board's review and consideration. For these reasons, it is recommended that the Board determine that Tinney, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, has documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach Program, waive any irregularities in Tinney's compliance, and award the construction contract to Tinney in the amount of$2,413,000. The architect's construction cost estimate for the project was$2,204,000. Other bids received: Base Bid 1. N V.Heathorn,Inc. $2,259,100 Emeryville 2. Stevelle Construction.Company $2,399,000 Emeryville 3. Taber Construction Company $2,500,000 Martinez 4. Albay Construction Company $2,605,000 Martinez 5. McFadden Construction,Inc. $2,605,000 Stockton 6. Rudolph Commercial Interiors, Inc. $2,619,904 San Francisca County Counsel has reviewed the Project Labor Agreement between Tinney and the Contra Costa County Building and Construction Trades Council and determined that it complies with the requirements of the County's Project Labor Agreement policy. JA:th cc w/attach.: County Administrator's Office County Counsel Clerk of the Board(w/bids) Contract Compliance Officer CERTIFIED COPY" 2 certify that this 1a a N11.trae and correct copy of the orl$insi document which is on file in my offiec ATTEST JOHN SWEM N Clerk of the board of S ors mod Caen �bYDOT . -tn HA2001L3050102101B002070m.dbc JAAb Rev.5/7/03 File: 305-010218.4.49 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order of May 13,2403,by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, GLOVER & DeSAULNIER NOES: NODE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN': NONE DISTRICT .III IS VACANT SUBJECT: Award of Contract for the First and Second Floor Remodel and Parking Lot Expansion at 1650 Cavallo Road, Antioch for the Employment and Human Services Department Budget Line Item No. 4423-4457 Authorization No. 0928-WH457B Bidder Total Amount Bond Amounts Tinney Construction Corporation $2,413,000 Payment: $2,413,000 575 Price Avenue Unit C Performance: $2,413,000 Redwood City, CA 94063 N. V. Heathorn Construction, Inc. San Leandro Stevelle Construction Company Emeryville Taber Construction Company Martinez Albay Construction Company Martinez McFadden Construction,Inc. Stockton Rudolph Commercial Interiors, Inc. San Francisco The above-referenced project, plans and specifications therefore having been previously approved, Addendum No. I having been issued and approved, and bids having been duly invited and received by the Director of General Services on February 6,2003; and N. V. Heathorn Construction, Inc. ("Heathom"), the lowest monetary bidder, having declined to extend its bid beyond the original 60-day bid expiration date(April 7, 2003), and Heathorn's bid having expired; and Stevelle Construction Company ("Stevelle"), the second lowest monetary bidder, having failed to submit good faith effort documentation under the County's Outreach Program within the period required in the contract documents, the Contract Compliance Officer having notified Stevelle of that determination, Stevelle having appealed the determination to the County Administrator but having later acknowledged the failure to timely submit good faith effort documentation, the County Administrator having denied Stevelle's appeal and having notified Stevelle of the denial, Stevelle having failed to extend its bid beyond the original 60-day bid expiration date (April 7, 2003) and Stevelle's bid having expired, and the Director of General Services recommending rejection of Stevelle's bid; and The bidder listed first above,Tinney Construction Corporation("Tinney"),having submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $87,000 less than the next highest bid; and The Contract Compliance Officer having forwarded for the Board's review and consideration the good faith effort documentation submitted by Tinney; and H.1Gavallo board order 5-7-03.doe 3A:tb Rev.5/51039-4-96 1 of 1 Award of Contract for the 345-0102/13.4.4 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR REMODEL AND May 13, 2003 PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 1650 CAVALLO ROAD,ANTIOCH FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tinney having entered into a Project Labor Agreement with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council and its affiliated unions, as required by the contract documents; and The Director of General Services recommending that the bid submitted by Tinney is the lowest responsive and responsible bid,and this Board concurring and so finding. NOW,THEREFORE,the Board finds,determines and orders as follows: The Board DETERMINES that the bid submitted by Heathorn has expired, REJECTS Heathorn's bid on that basis, and ORDERS that Heathom's bid bond be exonerated; and The Board FURTHER DETERMINES that the bid submitted by Stevelle has expired and that Stevelle failed to submit good faith effort documentation under the County's Outreach Program within the time required in the contract documents, and the Board REJECTS 'Stevelle's bid on those grounds, AFFIRMS the denial of Stevelle's appeal, and ORDERS that Stevelle's bid bond be exonerated; and The Board FURTHER DETERMINES that Tinney, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,has demonstrated an adequate good faith effort, pursuant to the specifications for this project, to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach Program, and the Board WAIVES any irregularities in such compliance and AFFIRMS the granting of Tinney's appeal; and The Board, therefore, ORDERS that the contract for the furnishing of labor and materials for said work is awarded to Tinney at the listed amount and at the prices submitted in said bid, and that said contractor shall present sufficient payment and performance surety bonds as indicated above, and that the Director of General Services, or designee, shall prepare the contract therefor; and The Beard FURTHER ORDERS that after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted above and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Director of General Services, or designee, has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Director of General Services, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board; and The Board FURTHER ORDERS that in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Director of General Services, or designee, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are to he exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned; and The .Board FURTHER ORDERS that the Director of General Services, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retention into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code and pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board DELEGATES its functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110 to the Director of General Services,or designee; and The Board FUR'T'HER DECLARES that, should the award of the contract to Tinney be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from reawarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake,refuses to sign the contract or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance in accordance with Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107. Orig. Dept. General Services Dept. -Capital Projects Management Division cc: General Services Department Capital Projects Management Division Accounting CPM File: 305-0102/A.5 CMMPMD Ct3py County Administrator's Office I'�that th►ais aralL aW end t�y Of the nttStnat document�lh is ou Me in my of{ice AT'TSST TORN SW88TON Cteak of the bo&td County Counsel s g e ey CU*, Contract Compliance Officer(via CPM) Auditor-Controller , :,:L� Tinney Construction Corporation(via CPM) Surety(via CPM) Interactive Resources(via CPM) H ACavallo board order 5-7-03.doe JMb Rev.5/5/039-4-96 2 of 2